Previous Section Home Page

Column 1136

Shipping (Dangerous Goods)

9.35 pm

The Minister for Aviation and Shipping (Mr. Patrick McLoughlin) : I beg to move,

That this House takes note of European Community Document No. 7074/89 relating to requirements for vessels carrying packaged dangerous goods when using Community ports ; considers that Community legislation does not represent the most appropriate means of securing the development of effective provisions to enhance environmental safety in this area ; and endorses the Government's view that any new measures should be adopted and implemented on a wider international basis through the International Maritime Organisation.

The Commission's proposal is to equip the Community with legislation on the transport of packaged dangerous goods by sea. It is seen as a means of plugging a loophole left by an earlier Council directive, No. 116/79, on the minimum requirements for tankers entering or leaving Community ports carrying oil, liquefied gas or chemicals in bulk. That directive does not cover a large and growing proportion of shipments of dangerous goods--those in packages, containers, tanker wagons, tanker lorries or mobile tankers. As its title implies, the purpose of the proposed directive is to require vessels entering or leaving Community ports carrying packages of dangerous goods and marine pollutants to observe a number of minimum standards.

Dr. Norman A. Godman (Greenock and Port Glasgow) : Will the Minister give way?

Mr. McLoughlin : Yes, with some trepidation.

Dr. Godman : The Minister always gives way extremely courteously. Has the Department of Transport a contingency plan to allow tankers that are in difficulty to enter sheltered waters for remedial measures to be taken? It if has, what consultations have taken place with the commercial fishermen who fish those sheltered waters?

Mr. McLoughlin : I hope to answer the hon. Gentleman's question when I reply to the debate.

The purpose of the proposed directive is to require vessels entering or leaving Community ports carrying packages of dangerous goods and marine pollutants to observe a number of minimum standards. It seeks to do that by imposing a number of rules applied to goods defined by reference to an arbitrary list of substances. The rules would require vessels carrying them to provide to the port state information that is specified in the directive ; to keep in contact with coastal radio and radar stations on passage ; to use pilot services ; and to provide the pilot with detailed information about the ship and its officers and require him to inform the port state of any deficiencies that he encounters. The rules would also require coastal states to inform all vessels in their territorial waters of the presence of other vessels known to be carrying dangerous goods. The Government's attitude was made clear in the explanatory memorandum. First, there is a risk that the measure, if enacted, would inhibit the free movement of ships by encouraging a trend to create pockets of different regimes of control in different parts of the world. It would create practical problems. Using figures from a 1987 research report from the European Commission,

Column 1137

approximately 4,000 ships would be involved at any one time, and there would be considerable difficulty in keeping track of all the information generated. The proposal to require vessels to use pilot services would be contrary to present United Kingdom law and Government policy, which leaves it to harbour authorities when considering their pilotage arrangements to take into account the hazards involved with vessels carrying dangerous goods.

We certainly want to give all possible support to proposals to enhance environmental safety, but an EC directive is not the best way to go about that. The carriage of harmful substances in packaged form by sea is regulated by international conventions on marine safety and pollution prevention. It is far more desirable for any new measures to be implemented through the International Maritime Organisation. The IMO, as hon. Members are aware, is a specialised agency of the United Nations with 134 member countries. It is a body par excellence for dealing with shipping safety and the protection of the marine environment. It has considerable reserves of expertise to call upon, and a long history of achievement.

For instance, there have been recent amendments to the safety and marine pollution conventions to include identification and listing of marine pollutants and development of detailed carriage conditions for them. There has also been agreement about the hardware and operating procedures needed for mounting rapid and co-ordinated search and rescue operations by shore authorities and ships in the immediate vicinity of any ships in distress.

Dr. Godman : What progress have the Government made in negotiations with other maritime states, on the hazardous and toxic substances convention? May I remind the Minister of the foundering in the English channel not long ago of the multivessel Perintis, which caused considerable concern to commercial fishermen who fish those waters? Does the Minister agree that negotiations undertaken under the umbrella of the IMO, on the carriage of toxic and dangerous substances, are much too slow and cumbersome and that we need directives and action to bring such dangers under control?

Mr. McLoughlin : I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's point. We have considerable powers when dealing with our own territorial waters, under the various controls that the Secretary of State may exercise. The hon. Gentleman referred to the Perintis. I think that I am right in saying that action was taken in that case under our existing powers. I shall check on the exact details, because I should not like to mislead the House.

I agree that dealing through the IMO can sometimes seem to take rather longer than one would wish, but it remains more sensible to try to secure international agreement than to create little pockets in which different things happen and different rules apply. Merchant shipping is by its nature an international activity. I should not want to put British ports and operators at an unfair disadvantage in relation to foreign ports and operators. We are often asked about the size of our merchant fleet, and if we started to impose more restrictions on our fleet, it would not grow as many hon. Members who have criticised its decline would wish it to grow.

It is because of the expertise of the IMO and the acceptance by the international community of the IMO that we believe that it is the right forum for such initiatives.

Column 1138

I must make it clear that the Government accept the principle that ships carrying packaged dangerous goods leaving or entering ports should identify themselves to the port authorities. There are already requirements for the prior notification of goods entering ports and we are sponsoring a proposal at the IMO, in conjunction with the Governments of other North sea nations, to extend them to goods leaving ports.

Hon. Members wish also to consider the Merchant Shipping (Distress Signals and Prevention of Collisions) Regulations 1989, which came into force on 19 November 1989. The 1972 international convention for preventing collisions at sea came into force in 1977. The United Kingdom is a signatory to the convention and brought it into effect in 1977. The IMO has amended the convention on two occasions. The first amendment was agreed in 1981 and was incorporated in new collision regulations in 1983. The second amendment was agreed in November 1987 and to incorporate that amendment, the 1989 regulations were made. The IMO required that they should come into force internationally on 19 November 1989, so they are in operation at the moment.

The regulations clarify certain aspects of the collision rules. They clear up anomalies in the wording of the original text and extend earlier regulations by the provision of some additional definitions. The most important changes relate to the actions of vessels using traffic separation schemes such as exist in that very busy stretch of water, the Dover strait.

I believe that the House also wishes to discuss the Merchant Shipping (Accident Investigation) Regulations. This instrument, which is made under the Merchant Shipping Act 1988, provides a framework for inquiries into all types of shipping accident, except for public inquiries, which are covered by earlier legislation. To some extent, they bring together in a single set of regulations what is already long-existing practice, but many of the provisions are new, and there was much helpful discussion in the course of their formation with representatives of all aspects of shipping operation. I believe that the regulations, in their present form, are recognised in the shipping industry generally as a valuable addition to marine legislation.

At much the same time as the regulations were being developed, the new marine accident investigation branch was coming into being, and this branch is to a large extent responsible for putting the regulations into practice. The task was previously carried out by the Department of Transport's marine directorate, which is responsible for marine safety in general, but it was decided to separate the investigatory function. That will avoid any question of conflict of interests in an inquiry, and means that a dedicated body is available to concentrate on investigations. To an extent, there is a parallel with the long-established air accident investigation branch, and as with that branch, the chief inspector reports directly to the Secretary of State. The marine accident investigation branch, although part of the Department of Transport, is entirely separate from and independent of the marine directorate.

Dr. Godman : I wish to ask the Minister an important question. When can the people of the lower Clyde expect the report to be published on the loss of the motor fishing vessel Destiny with the deaths of six men? That is an important question, because the foundering of that vessel

Column 1139

should be investigated by a fatal accident inquiry. I cannot make that demand to the Lord Advocate's office until an inquiry is completed by the marine accident investigation branch.

Mr. McLoughlin : I hope that I can answer the hon. Gentleman's question. I do not want to be drawn on that accident, which was tragic and moving to any person who remembers the events that weekend. I know that the hon. Gentleman paid tribute to those involved in the rescue operation. I hope that what I am about to say will go some way towards helping him to understand why it may take some time to publish the report that he wants. I shall deal first with the way in which the investigation is progressing into the Marchioness disaster on the Thames last August. For obvious reasons, we shall follow the same procedures, in the investigation that he mentioned.

Already, both the marine accident investigation branch and the regulations are being put to the test. Sadly, hon. Members will be only too well aware of the Marchioness tragedy. The regulations provide for the more serious accidents to be the subject of an inspector's inquiry, and that is considered to be the appropriate investigation in this case. The investigation is now in its final stages, but before publication of the chief inspector's report, which must include the inspector's findings and the chief inspector's recommendations, there are a number of procedures to be complied with.

The regulations require that any party whose reputation might be affected by the report must be shown it in draft form and given the opportunity to comment. If any point at issue cannot be resolved, the aggrieved party can provide an alternative text that must be set out with the report when it is submitted. Those important safeguards require a minimum of two months to allow all those concerned adequate time to respond.

I am sure that hon. Members will realise why that is done. Once the report has been issued, it will normally be made public, so it is important to give anybody who may be criticised or whose judgment may be called into question the right to have his or her say on it. In addition, there have been several less severe but still serious accidents requiring full investigation.

Mr. Simon Hughes (Southwark and Bermondsey) : I am sorry that I was not here at the beginning of the debate, but it began early. On the present assessments, what will the delay be between now and the expected conclusion of the inquiry and the reports on the Marchioness incident, bearing in mind the procedures that the Minister outlined? I know that the railway inspectorate, which is also supervised from the Minister's Department, has a similar parallel in its investigation work. What is the link between the investigation by the inspectorate and any potential prosecution by the Director of Public Prosecutions? I appreciate that the Minister may want to be careful about his answer, but it is important that people know how the work done by the inspectorate and any potential prosecutions interrelate. It would be reassuring if we could have that information by the end of the debate.

Mr. McLoughlin : We hope and expect to be able to publish the report as soon as possible, but I do not want to say too much this evening that might lead people to believe that publication is imminent because there is still

Column 1140

some way to go. As I have said, part of what remains to be done is that the inspector's report must go first to the chief inspector and then to the people who may or may not be criticised. Time is obviously a factor in this. Once the report is issued, consideration is given to the criminal charges that might be brought, if any are deemed necessary. I do not wish to say at the moment whether that would or would not be the case, because that is not a decision for me and it is not a decision for the chief inspector, as I understand it. However, if I am wrong I shall clarify the point later.

There have been several serious accidents requiring full investigation as well as a number of other incidents, relatively minor but still significant. The various inspectors are greatly helped in their task by the co-operation given by those concerned in those accidents ; but even with that co-operation they are finding it valuable to have the backing and guidance of clearly laid down provisions as given in the regulations.

The provisions cover not only the conduct of investigations but their purpose ; they set out the requirement for the reporting of accidents and the preservation of evidence. They cover the investigation of hazardous incidents--"near misses" as they are sometimes called--and they provide for the publication of reports and summaries. The aim of investigations, as set out in the regulations, is to improve safety at sea and to avoid accidents in the future. I am sure that the regulations provide a sound and practical basis for marine inquiry work for many years to come, and I hope that the House will accept them as laid down and support them tonight.

9.53 pm

Ms. Joan Ruddock (Lewisham, Deptford) : The Opposition have sought the opportunity to discuss these two statutory instruments tonight-- although, as the Minister said, they have already come into effect--because of the seriousness of the issues. On the night before the last scheduled date for this debate--9 November--there was yet another serious shipping accident. On that occasion, the passenger ferry Hamburg collided with a cargo vessel and two British people lost their lives. Last week on the Thames, another pleasure boat was hit by a barge in an accident that might have been a tragic repeat of last year's Marchionness disaster. Thankfully, it was not, but each accident raises important questions for the Minister.

We welcome the Merchant Shipping (Distress Signals and Prevention of Collisions) Regulations, because 53 per cent. of casualties on merchant vessels are caused by collisions and contacts. Moreover, it is of deep concern to us and to the National Union of Seamen that flags of convenience vessels continue to have a significantly higher accident rate than those of western flagged vessels. In the accident to which I referred earlier, the cargo vessel was the Nordic Stream. It is registered in Panama and I understand that it calls at British ports. Can the Minister tell us whether this ship has been the subject of any Department of Transport investigation in recent times and how often flags of convenience vessels are inspected in United Kingdom ports? It would also be of interest to know when we may expect publication of the Government's research into making roll-on/roll- off ferries safer--work which, I believe, was begun following the Herald of Free Enterprise disaster in 1987.

Column 1141

Communications between vessels is obviously important in the avoidance of collisions, and we are advised that there is a strong case for compulsory radar equipment within our estuaries. The area between Tower bridge and London bridge has witnessed 11 incidents in the past five years ; a further six have occurred just along the river at King's Reach, including the fateful Marchioness collision. Just before we were due to debate this subject in the House last time, a river bus was involved in a collision, injuring 10 people. Last week, as I have already said, yet another Thames pleasure boat, this time carrying 150 teachers, was involved in a collision with a river barge in darkness. Thankfully, no one was injured, but the similarity of that incident to the Marchioness disaster raises urgent questions.

Can the Minister tell us whether the Secretary of State's six-point code, which was instigated following the Marchioness disaster, applied to these vessels? If so, was it followed and how was it enforced? If not, what lessons does the Minister expect to learn from these events?

In addition to this incident, we should note an accident in which a sand barge collided with a stationary rubbish barge only hours after the collision to which I am referring. It is no exaggeration to suggest that another fatal accident may be imminent.

As the Minister acknowledged, separation schemes in which lanes and notorious accident spots are closely monitored could play a vital role in keeping traffic flowing safely. Skippers on cargo boats on the Thames frequently complain about pleasure craft moving indiscriminately from one side of the river to the other. Does the Minister think that the time has come for formalised codes of conduct for traffic movement, rather than the present voluntary and recommended codes?

The Marchioness collision also highlighted the inadequate use of lookouts. Members of the National Union of Seamen have urged me to remind the Minister that lookouts play a crucial role in safety and navigation, irrespective of technological advances. We are therefore very disturbed to hear of a Department research project allowing ships under 1,600 gross tonnes to sail at night at sea without a lookout and with only one officer on duty. I understand that this project is currently being undertaken in the Irish sea, and I should be grateful if the Minister could confirm that and give us his comments.

With regard to the statutory instrument on accident investigation, although we support in principle a marine accident investigation branch responsible for the investigation of all types of marine accident, we are concerned, despite what the Minister said, about the composition and independence of that body. Opposition Members believe that the safety of marine transport should be removed to a truly independent safety inspectorate within a reformed Health and Safety Executive.

I take this opportunity to ask the Minister how many public inquiries have resulted from preliminary inquiries. As he knows, and as he said tonight, preliminary inquiries are mandatory ; following them up with a full public inquiry is left to the discretion of the Secretary of State. The loss of the Derbyshire in 1980 resulted in the loss of 44 lives, yet it did not come to a public inquiry until seven years later. Perhaps when it is convenient the Minister could give us the figures for preliminary and public inquiries carried out in 1988, so that we can examine the point further.

Column 1142

Dr. Godman : With regard to the Derbyshire, there was some concern about the loss of the report into that tragic event. I wondered whether my hon. Friend intended to mention the loss of the report.

Ms. Ruddock : My hon. Friend reminds me of an important point. I had not intended to refer to it, but it has undoubtedly complicated the position and perhaps explains the considerable delay in bringing the issue into the full glare of a public inquiry.

More immediately, I should like to ask about the Government's intentions regarding the Marchioness inquiry. I am grateful for the explanations so far about procedure, but it does not take us to the point in which we are most interested, the holding of a public inquiry. We believe that such loss of life warrrants a full public inquiry.

It is salutary to note the news from Bow street today regarding the corporate manslaughter charge to be pursued against P and O in respect of the Herald of Free Enterprise disaster. Controversial though it may be, the fact is that that action would not be pursued--

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean) : Order. The hon. Lady is referring to a case which is sub judice. I think she understands the rules of the House. She should not refer to it further.

Ms. Ruddock : Certainly, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I gave no intention of referring to the issues in the case. I simply want to point out that charges could not have been brought had the issue not been examined at a public inquiry. It set an important precedent that the House should note.

I appeal to the Minister to use his best endeavours to persuade the Secretary of State to set up a full public inquiry into the Marchioness disaster. Nothing less will satisfy the relatives of those who died.

A further problem arises from the involvement of the Department in investigations. I take the opportunity of asking the Minister whether the practice continues whereby shipowners who are asked to co-operate in an investigation are given an assurance by the Department that it will not bring a prosecution. The Health and Safety Executive, by comparison, requires the co-operation of shipowners by law and does not have to provide them with assurances of immunity. Is that not another point in favour of removing the marine accident investigation branch from the auspices of the Department of Transport?

Moving to the European document on shipping and dangerous cargoes, we believe that the directive represents an attempt to improve existing regulations governing the movement of dangerous cargoes in and out of member state ports. Therefore, we regret the Government's decision to disregard the document in favour of relying on what might be implemented by the International Maritime Organisation. Although we recognise the valuable role of the IMO in retaining and improving standards at sea, we believe that the wholesale rejection of the directive will not help to create uniform standards for ships of member states.

The directive responds to the loopholes in previous legislation which laid down only minimum requirements for oil and chemical tankers in Community ports. The new measure would cover widespread shipments of dangerous goods, as the Minister said, in other forms such as packages, containers and mobile tankers. In bearing down

Column 1143

on all forms of shipment of dangerous goods, it will play a large role in the prevention and control of pollution in British waters. Tonight we have heard the Government's three main objections. The first two--the inability to maintain constant contact and the problem of the sheer volume of traffic--are not wholly misplaced. We recognise that, in the English channel, where traffic is constant, the scope for detection and avoidance is ever-present, but the Government's response to those problems is defeatist.

The Government's third objection, involving compulsory pilotage, runs most directly counter to present United Kingdom policy and seems to be at the heart of the disagreement. I understand that United Kingdom pilotage is not compulsory in normal circumstances or to accompany ships with dangerous cargoes. My hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley, North (Mr. Howarth) argued in the Chamber on 23 October last year that the absence of a pilot could have been a contributory factor in the then recent Humber tanker collision. The use of pilots when carrying dangerous goods is a practice which the Government should encourage. When a ship is in unfamiliar waters, there is every reason to suppose that its well-being would benefit from a pilot's expert knowledge.

The Government have dismissed the compulsory use of pilots, as well as the recommendations applying to pilots. United Kingdom ships could certainly benefit from the directive because, as the tragic accident involving the Herald of Free Enterprise made clear, legislation is not strict enough and dangerous goods are shipped without being declared. In that instance, unnotified cargoes, including cyanide, were discovered when the Herald sank. If we were to follow the European proposals, a pilot on board would have to go through a safety check list which would include the identification of any dangerous cargoes. The Government could and should apply the directive's proposals to ships on which pilots are employed. That is a separate issue from whether pilots should be compulsory. In discussion of these matters, it is important not to lose sight of the fact that there is considerable traffic in small parcels of dangerous cargoes. The National Union of Seamen has calculated that almost all ships sailing from Dover are likely to have some form of dangerous cargo on board. It believes, as we do, that higher safety standards should be sought.

As well as the objections that I have already mentioned, in the explanatory memorandum the Government made it clear that the financial implications of enforcing some of the measures weigh heavily against their implementation. We are told that the cost of compulsory pilotage and maintaining contact with coastal radio stations would have to be borne by the shipping industry. We regret the imposition of financial burdens, but they should not be allowed to deter the pursuit of greater safety. We are also told that the costs of coastal stations to inform each other of vessel movements would fall on the Department. That looks like another example of the Department shrinking from its responsibility for the maintenance and improvement of transport infrastructure. The spate of recent accidents suggests that we cannot afford to withhold spending on marine safety.

Are the Government taking any independent steps to ensure that dangerous goods are not carried unnotified on

Column 1144

ships? Can the Minister inform us of any alternatives to the measures in this directive? It would be useful to know how many unannounced inspections of ships for dangerous cargoes have taken place during the past five years and whether the Government plan to step up staffing levels for the inspectorate.

The Government's response to the directive has been to emphasise the proposals' negative aspect. They have failed to admit that the essence of those proposals is already embodied in United Kingdom legislation in relation to oil and chemical tankers. Therefore, they have a duty to explain why the same kind of regulations should not apply to dry cargo ships carrying dangerous goods in large and small quantities.

The European document exposes a gap in United Kingdom legislation. Although we are not uncritical enthusiasts for the European directive, it contains some useful measures which appear to have been dismissed too lightly.

10.10 pm

Mr. Ronnie Fearn (Southport) : It would appear that, in this enlightened era, all political parties support, or at least claim to support, proposals that would lead to a safer and cleaner environment. Where we differ is on how, when and at what cost we should implement proposals to achieve that aim.

The problem with the Government's aim is that it is full of fine rhetoric but has little substance and very little action. The record is not good, particularly on implementing European Community directives. The directives on the transfrontier shipment of hazardous waste were not acted on until the threat of legal action made it embarrassing for the Government not to act.

We are asked to believe that there has been a change of heart in relation to environmental issues, but unfortunately, when the Government talk about such issues, there always seems to be a caveat which goes something like, "We shall act to protect the environment, so long as such action does not interfere with the economy of the country or the profits of business." It is time that we realised that saving our environment will cost money. It will be difficult and it may create more work and administration, but it is vital for us to act. We cannot afford not to.

So I challenge the Government : if they are in earnest in their desire to create a safer environment, why not stop the trade in toxic wastes and prohibit their import? The scale of this trade and the problem that it presents should not be under-estimated. The amount of waste arriving at our ports has risen alarmingly in the past few years.

Mr. McLoughlin : Is the hon. Gentleman saying that we should stop all ships with any toxic waste coming into our ports?

Mr. Fearn : Yes. I thought that I was quite positive in the statement that I made.

The amount of waste arriving at our ports has arisen alarmingly in recent years. In 1981-82, 3,786 tonnes of toxic waste was imported into this country ; by 1986-87, the amount had grown to 52,981 tonnes, as enormous increase.

This small land of ours, surrounded by seas, cannot afford to continue to allow those seas to be polluted. Southport, a thriving resort on the Irish sea, has problems because of pollution from land-based activites, including

Column 1145

those of Sellafield and Springfield. We do not want more pollution on top of that. Marine life vital to our own is threatened. Let us act to reduce the threat.

Let us examine ways to encourage the International Maritime Organisation and the EC to prohibit the transportation by sea of substances such as PCBs and radioactive material. If we cannot get a ban, let us quickly at least have some strict rules that would prevent the fiasco of last year when ships were travelling the high seas with highly dangerous toxic waste but nowhere to berth. The directive is concerned with vessels carrying packaged dangerous goods, and I know that the feeling in shipping circles is similar to that which has been expressed by the Government. The Freight Transport Association believes that many of the requirements are already covered by existing law, or will be as a result of reforms being introduced by the IMO. Those reforms are to be welcomed, but they should not preclude further measures being introduced by the EC or, for that matter, by unilateral action.

The EC directive builds on and expands the regulations, particularly in the area of pollutants, and we should welcome such moves. But there are plenty of instances where ships can carry dangerous cargo despite the rules and regulations. We should consider closing some of those loopholes if we are to continue to transport dangerous and harmful cargo either in bulk or packaged.

Relative authorities should be in a position to identify in detail any such cargo in the interest of an immediate response to accidents. The sinking of the Muree last October and the consequent washing up of canisters containing chemicals on south coast beaches may be a case in point.

I was somewhat concerned to learn from the Minister's reply to my question on 22 June 1989 that, if the marine pollution control unit decides that it is not necessary to relocate and recover drums of chemical material after an accident, no permanent record is kept. Perhaps the Minister will comment on that. We are all aware that we do not always know what materials are on board ships. How many substances have, in the past, been pronounced harmless that today are known to have devastating effects on the environment and on individual's health? I hope that the practice of not keeping permanent records will be

Column 1146

rectified. I also hope that, under the merchant shipping regulations, any investigation of or inquiry into an accident will be open and that the conclusions of the report will be published. I must thank the National Union of Seamen for its briefing. Although I already had some of the information to hand, I recognise how helpful the NUS can be for future briefings. It is clear that, no matter how many restrictions we may place on the transport of dangerous goods by sea, the restrictions in themselves will not prevent accidents. We need to consider other means, such as improvement in proficiency of navigation through training of personnel and improvement in equipment and design. Perhaps we need to examine the laws of the sea and the numbers, size and speed of sea craft. Perhaps we should more closely consider the enforcement of present laws with more realistic penalties for non-compliance. Enforcement of article 5 of the proposed directive is one of the arguments against it. I am not sure that we should so easily accept that, because something is difficult to enforce, we should not bring it into law. If we followed that argument, much that is on the statute book would not be there. On second thoughts, perhaps that might be a good thing. Surely it is good practice, and worth encouraging, that masters of ships carrying potentially dangerous cargo should maintain radio or radar contact with a coastal station. That is worth pursuing and should not be discarded, as the Minister did earlier.

The Government's explanation of their concern about the article covering pilotage is not tenable, because the EC requirements go further than the Pilotage Act 1987. This should not be a cause to rule them out. I hope that the Government's over-zealous opposition to anything that comes from Europe is not clouding their vision. If we are in earnest and wish to reduce the risk to our environment from the potential damage posed by the transportation of hazardous cargo, we should be supporting, investing in and acting on such proposed directives as the one before us today. Let us find a way of incorporating the proposals in the directive with the reforms proposed by the International Maritime Organisation. There is no reason why that should not be investigated and an incorporation brought about.

Column 1147

10.18 pm

Dr. Norman A. Godman (Greenock and Port Glasgow) : I have a few questions for the Minister concerning the documents. First, I refer to the proposal for a directive. I think that I am correct in saying that a directive does not carry the power of a regulation. I direct the Minister's attention to article 5 on page 3 of the proposal. It says that there is a need for vessels to

"communicate to the competent authority in the Member State in which the port of berthing or departure is located".

Can the Minister confirm that that is precisely what happens with regard to tankers coming into Sullom Voe for cargoes, and that the Sullom Voe authorities have advance notice of the movement of such large vessels?

Article 5(iv) of the directive refers to the need of masters to avail themselves of the pilot services available. Is it not the case--I am sure that the Minister will give me a prompt answer--that the pilotage authority can demand that a vessel master employ the services of a pilot?

Mr. McLoughlin indicated assent.

Dr. Godman : I wondered whether any disputes between the pilotage authorities and masters of ships refusing such services had come to his notice.

Article 7 says :

"Pilots engaged in the berthing or departure of the vessels concerned shall immediately inform the competent authority" if they have any concerns or anxieties. Has the Department of Transport advised the pilotage authorities that, if they have any concern about the competence of crews or about the manoeuvrability of vessels, they should inform the appropriate authorities?

I move now to statutory instrument No. 1172--the Merchant Shipping (Accident Investigation) Regulations 1989. I want to put to the Minister several questions regarding the safety of fishing vessels. There will be no point in the Minister saying that the matter of fishing vessels is tangential to this debate. I remind him that fishing vessels are mentioned several times in the statutory instrument.

Are lessons that have been learnt from investigations into the stranding or foundering of vessels acted upon? I ask that question in the light of the involvement of United Kingdom-registered fishing vessels in what I can only describe as extremely dangerous waters. The stern fishing vessel the Gaul was lost in 1972. My hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) will remember this well because, sad to say, constituents of his were lost with that vessel. What lessons were learnt from that tragic loss? I am thinking of the allocation of domestic fishing catches to United Kingdom vessels. I have written to the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food--I am sure that the Parliamentary Secretary is aware of my letter- -warning of the dangers of inexperienced skippers fishing off the east coast of Greenland in winter.

Fishing off the west coast of Greenland at this time of the year is dangerous enough. I speak from what I might call indirect personal knowledge, as my brother Leslie is the mate of the filleter/freezer the Arctic Corsair, which at this very minute is fishing off the west coast of Greenland. Fishermen with experience of Greenland waters say that,

Column 1148

relatively speaking, fishing off the east coast--in the Denmark straits--is much more dangerous than fishing off the west coast. My letter to the Minister of Agriculture stressed the need to allocate that east coast Greenland cod catch to fishermen who were experienced in those extremely hazardous waters. Hence my question about whether the results of earlier investigations are taken into account in discussions between the Department of Transport and the Ministry of Agriculture, on the safety of fishing vessels. I do not need to remind the Minister that, between 1984 and 1988, 135 United Kingdom-registered fishing vessels were lost as they went about their extremely difficult business.

Following such an investigation, has the Department of Transport ever received a strongly worded recommendation that the carriage of immersion suits in fishing vessels is an important safety measure? The Minister knows that, when his old friend Mr. Albert McQuarrie introduced his Safety at Sea Bill in 1985, I tabled a new clause on the carriage of immersion suits on fishing vessels of 10 m and above in length. That new clause was not supported by Mr. McQuarrie and others on Report, but have any of the recent investigations given rise to such a recommendation?

Some few years ago, in a February gale, rather like the one that we have suffered over the past few hours, a French trawler foundered off the west coast of Scotland. I am sure that the Under-Secretary knows the case in point. There were some 28 men on board that ship, and about 12 or13 of them had sufficient time to don their immersion suits. The other poor souls went overboard in their underwear, roused from their bunks. The men who went overboard in their immersion suits survived for upwards of three hours before a helicopter arrived to pluck them from the heavy swell. The poor souls who went overboard without immersion suits quickly perished.

I have previously discussed with the Minister the need to carry immersion suits, and he has said that he is willing to listen sympathetically to my plea, for which I am deeply grateful. I hope that he will take my plea on board. I know that fishermen are not too keen on the carriage of immersion suits because they are expensive. I think that they cost £400 plus. French trawlers of a certain size cannot leave port unless they have immersion suits on board ; the same should hold for United Kingdom- registered fishing vessels. Regulation 2(b) of the Merchant Shipping (Accident Investigation) Regulations contains the words

"a ship is lost or presumed to be lost, or is abandoned or materially damaged".

Does a fishing vessel that experiences material damage because it has scooped up in its nets debris from the offshore oil and gas industries come within that definition? If it does, would it be in order for the skipper or the owner of the vessel to ask for an inquiry into the incident?

As for regulation 2(1)(d)--a disabled ship--and regulation 2(1)(e)--any material damage having been caused by a ship--does damage caused by a ship include vessels belonging to the Royal Navy or the United States navy? I refer specifically to nuclear submarines entering and leaving the firth of Clyde. Very small fishing vessels have trawled up huge--compared with fishing vessels--nuclear submarines. It is very dangerous when two such vessels come into contact with each other.

I speak on behalf of the members of the Clyde Fishermen's Association when I ask the Minister whether

Column 1149

fishermen have the right under the regulations to ask for an inquiry. Even if the fishing vessel does not sink, such a collision can cause serious damage to its gear.

The regulation on page 5, headed "Reopening of Investigation", says :

"The Chief Inspector may cause any investigation to be reopened". If there were a collision between a submarine and a fishing vessel's gear, could the skipper ask for the investigation of the incident to be reopened, in the light of fresh evidence concerning the movement of naval vessels?

I have a great deal of respect for the captains and crews of nuclear submarines. I have visited Faslane and the American base at Holy Loch. The previous Secretary of State for Defence and the Minister arranged the visit, for which my colleagues and I were extremely grateful. The hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Mrs. Michie), within whose constituency the bases are located, accompanied us. During our visit, and in subsequent correspondence with Ministers at the Ministry of Defence, I sought to establish whether the captains and crews of nuclear vessels are sufficiently familiar with the different types of fishing vessels and fishing gear to be able to take avoiding action when moving below the surface. When they are moving through fishing grounds, they ought, whenever and wherever possible--I accept that we must take account of security-- travel on the surface. Their acoustic equipment is sometimes not sufficiently sophisticated, to detect certain types of fishing gear.

I put my questions to the Minister in, I hope, my usual fair-minded way. I am not here to score party political points, but, as someone who is a member of a fishing family and honorary president of the Clyde Fishermen's Association, for me these are very important questions concerning inexperienced fisherman fishing in very dangerous waters and the need to keep nuclear submarines coming in and out of the firth of Clyde away from the vessels of our inshore fisherman.

Finally, I come back to the very sad question of the sinking of the multi- fishing vessel, the Destiny. The skipper of that vessel, Billy Irvine, a man known to me, was drowned, with five other men, on that disastrous Sunday. I regret to say that their bodies have not yet been recovered. I know that the sinking of that vessel and the tragic death of those men are the subject of an inquiry by an inspector, but in my view the sinking poses certain questions that can be answered only by what we in Scotland call a fatal accident inquiry. I know that this is nothing to do with the Minister, but the present investigation has a deal to do with him and his Department. I want to know when that investigation is likely to be concluded and when the report will be presented to his Department. Only then can I approach the Lord Advocate again with a formal request that he institute a fatal accident inquiry into that loss.

I have sought in this brief intervention to put to the Minister certain questions concerning this document. I think it is a useful document in some respects, although I accept the reservations of my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Ms. Ruddock) earlier. But the thorough, comprehensive, tough-minded investigation of the sinking of any vessel is absolutely essential, particularly in the light of the recommendations made by those who conduct those investigations, in order that, among other things, such founderings can in the future be reduced to the barest minimum.

Next Section

  Home Page